The Government should not delay on its nuclear power plans

Negotiations over Hinkley Point C are going too slowly

6:59AM BST 21 Apr 2013

SIR – At the end of last month, the then Government Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Sir John Beddington, set out a long-term vision for the critical role of nuclear energy in Britain’s future low-carbon energy mix.

The Government also published its nuclear industrial strategy, aiming to expand Britain’s contribution to its domestic nuclear programmes, enhance international business, drive innovation through research and development and develop nuclear skills.

At around the same time Ed Davey granted planning consent for Hinkley Point C, marking a significant step towards realising a new nuclear programme in Britain.

Nuclear energy brings significant public health and environmental benefits. Hinkley Point C alone will save more than 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year if replacing gas.

Building a fleet of new nuclear power stations rather than one reactor at a time will lead to considerable economies of scale and lower costs for consumers. It will also provide the reliable, secure, low-carbon energy urgently needed in this country.

Related Articles

However, we are becoming increasingly concerned at the apparent slow progress of negotiations between the Government and EDF Energy for Hinkley Point C, and we fear this aspiration could be undermined if a deal on the pioneer project is not resolved satisfactorily.

Professor Sir David King Former Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government

Professor Gerry Thomas Chair in Molecular Pathology Imperial College London

SIR – Given the complete failure of the last government to do anything to renew Britain’s nuclear power generation, allowing indigenous expertise to decline to such an extent that we now rely on foreign companies, it would be more than a pity if EDF Energy were to pull out of the Hinkley Point project.

Lord Hutton’s warning of the failure to reach an agreement may well be coming true, now that Hitachi is also considering its position (Business, April 14).

I would be far happier if this money went to ensure an adequate rate of return for EDF for the deal to be agreed and progress to get under way. There is too much at stake to procrastinate on this issue.

B J Colby Portishead, Bristol

SIR – I was concerned by the article “MPs: No more wind farms in our backyard” (report, April 16). Because gas turbines must be used when the wind does not blow, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions it should be “no more wind farms anywhere”.

France, where most power is nuclear, has zero carbon dioxide emissions from the actual generation of electricity. There are more deaths every year worldwide in gas and oil exploration and production than those as a result of nuclear power. Wind is indirectly polluting and dangerous as well as being extremely unreliable and expensive.

Whatever Britain does will have little effect on climate worldwide but the high costs of wind will continue to destroy our economy.

Clive Dray Newbury, Berkshire

SIR – Lord Hutton states that 25 per cent of the agreed price for the supply of nuclear fuel will come back to the public through taxes (Business, April 14). That is clearly wrong. Taxes are taken from the public, either directly or indirectly, and go to the Government, which is not synonymous with providing for the public good.

On the contrary: a large portion of tax revenue is used to fund the costs of our current big government and bloated civil service, the EU gravy train, quangos, or is paid in interest on loans because our Government is incapable of living within its means.

The extra tax we will all now have to pay on top of our energy costs will provide very little, if any, value to the taxpayer in return.

Roger Earp Bexhill, East Sussex

Ukip has a lot to prove at local council level

SIR – Ukip appears to be a one-policy organisation pretending to represent the public at large.

It desperately wants to be taken seriously and is contesting many local council seats this May. But I have some queries.

How will Ukip’s sums add up when council budgets are required? Can they be trusted to make sure all youngsters will receive a proper education?

Will they make sure hospitals and social services do not come to a grinding halt? What are their plans with respect to public transport, energy conservation and taxation – indeed, all the services that have an affect on county councils? They have no experience of running them.

Richard Grant Burley, Hampshire

Dog-tired

SIR – With regard to your article regarding the Kennel Club’s issue with the (alleged) marginalisation of dogs (“Forever in the dog house...”, report, April 14); the comments of the Kennel Club secretary, Caroline Kisko, fail to take account of the alternative view.

In my experience dogs are a public nuisance at best and at worst, a danger to the public.

Their faeces litters our streets and parks, their barking disturbs our peace and quiet, and attacks on humans (including children and babies), some of which are fatal, are increasing.

I would suggest that we all have a right to a dog-free environment.

Brian Chambers Malvern, Worcestershire

Panning out

SIR – Isn’t it time for the BBC to open a designated channel for their cooking programmes?

This would take away the endless hours of pots and pans from prime-time television.

David Smith London W14

Let it flow

SIR – Following several toilet waste pipe blockages at home, I questioned Dyno-Rod as to why they have increased significantly. The answer is that modern, EU-specified lavatories flush only three to five litres compared to the old British designs which flushed around 13 litres.

Hence, installing EU-specified lavatories on existing British waste pipe systems causes blockage problems in many cases because of insufficient water flow. As a consequence, business for Dyno-Rod has mushroomed in recent years and of course, we all pay. Well done the EU once again!